Operation TomodachiIndividual Radiation Monitoring

LCDR Thad Sharp, USNJoint Forces Land Component Command

(JFLCC) – III MEF(F)

Outline

• Radiation Monitoring Program intro• CONOPS• Execution• Challenges• Recommendations

2

Assignment Introduction

• OPCON to Marine Corps Forces Pacific (MARFORPAC)

• TACON to JFLCC (III MEF (Fwd))• Augmented Force Surgeon and G-3 at

MARFORPAC and Command Surgeon at JFLCC• Requested to support Operation Tomodachi as

a radiation and decontamination SME

3

Radiation MonitoringProgram Background

• Commandant of the Marine Corps directed “all Marines in the effected area be monitored for radiation with a dose of record device”

• MARFORPAC to perform radiation monitoring for Marines working ISO Operation Tomodachi

• Requested approval from LTG Theissen for radiation monitoring plan prior to pushing forward to JFLCC in Japan

4

Planned CONOPS

• Provide dose of record radiation monitoring for all Marines and DoD civilians working in the effected area

• Monitor housing areas with posted dosimetry• Potentially monitor dependents• Navy DT-702 TLDs for use as primary

dosimeter and Navy EPDs as secondary dosimeter for use in the hot zone

5

Challenges to Planned CONOPS

• JFLCC is a Joint command with all Services represented

• Plans developed by MARFORPAC were NOT coordinated with the forward command elements

• MARFORPAC didn’t have all the information going forward

• Air Force Radiation Assessment Team (AFRAT) arrived 2 days before my team

6

Revised Plan Execution

• AFRAT issued NVLAP EPDs to all Service members per CG JFLCC direction

• Instead of replacing Marine’s EPD with Navy TLDs, continued use of AFRAT EPDs– EPDs provide real-time digital readout

• Psychological impact of replacing EPD with TLD (no real-time info)

• AFRAT fell under JFLCC and provided dosimetry services

7

Revised Plan Execution

8

Thermo MK2 EPD

Navy DT-702 TLD

Challenges

• Personnel Movement• EPD vice TLD• Service Specific Dosimetry• Higher HQ Guidance

9

Challenges – Personnel Movement

• For Navy RHOs– Many RHOs are in 1 of 1 billets– Some resistance to give up RHOs for deployment– No clear plan once the members arrived in

country, for example:• Where they were to be assigned• Who exactly to report to• What their mission was going to be

– Medical Planners did not seek requirements guidance from forward command elements

10

Challenges – Personnel Movement

• AFRAT and USTRANSCOM problems– The AFRAT sat at Wright Patterson AFB for several

days waiting on transportation

11

Challenges – Personnel Movement

• Travel orders/DTS/GOVCC/SATO issues– Original orders were for ship conditions

• Mission changed before even getting to Hawaii– Not all SATO offices can help with TAD travel– Orders amendment required for partial payment

to GOVCC (TAD >45 days)– GOVCC credit limit not high enough for extended

overseas TAD

12

Challenges – EPD vs. TLD

• Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (TLD)– Very common device for recording a radiation

“dose of record” (primary dosimeter)– Provides no real-time readings to the user– Must be sent back to home lab to be read– Much lower cost per unit compared to EPD

13

Challenges – EPD vs. TLD

• Electronic Personal Dosimeter (EPD)– Becoming more widely used as a primary

dosimeter if NVLAP accredited– Provides digital, real-time information to the user– Can be confusing with regards to NVLAP

accredited device or not• It’s the process and not just the EPD that is accredited• CBRN Marine’s DMR-2000 EPD is neither a calibrated

nor accredited dosimeter– To date, only AFRAT has NVLAP accredited EPDs

14

Challenges - Service SpecificDosimetry

• Army, Navy, and Air Force all have different dosimetry systems (OSL, Harshaw, Panasonic)– All work very well for specific Service

requirements• All Services have different methods of storing

the permanent radiation dose in medical records and archives

• Not conducive to a Joint operation in a radiological environment

15

Challenges - Service SpecificDosimetry

• Resistance from all three Service Dosimetry Centers on the use of one common primary dosimeter for all Service members assigned to the JFLCC

• One Service still badged personnel with their specific dosimetry– Created a “double badging” problem

16

Challenges – Higher HQ Guidance

• Guidance was 300 mrem/operation– Most JTF personnel had TLDs not EPDs

• Dosimetry guidance:– Confusing– Delayed– Conflicting

• JFLCC had to develop and execute plans without higher command guidance

17

Recommendations

• Develop and deploy a Joint radiation dosimeter for use in Joint operations– Needs to be NVLAP accredited– Easily integrated by all Services– Lightweight– Rugged and EMP hardened– LLD in the microrem range, i.e. ~10 urem/h– Provide real-time and long term exposure info

18

Recommendations

• Evaluate and update training on equipment for radiation and nuclear events for CBRN Marines– Specific training for proper contamination surveys– More in-depth radiation safety training

• Biological effects of ionizing radiation• Radiation and contamination detection principles and

equipment• Basic health physics and math related to radiation

safety

19

The Way Ahead

• The JRO-CBRND has begun the collaborative efforts for writing a Capabilities Development Document (CDD) for a Joint Expeditionary Radiation Dosimetry System

20